I went into Florence Foster Jenkins expecting to dislike it. I expected a bland, cliched, high brow film designed to bait yet another Oscar nomination for Meryl Streep, as if she’s entitled to one with every performance, as well as one for Hugh Grant. I came away from the film pleasantly surprised by a story with a lot of heart and interesting depth as well as performances worthy of their early Oscar hype.
Florence Foster Jenkins (Streep) is a rich socialite in the 1940s who aspires to be a great opera singer but whose talent does not match said ambition. St. Clair Bayfield (Grant) is her husband who humors her singing and does everything in his power to create an environment where she can enjoy the pursuit surrounded by encouragement and happiness.
The film raises questions about what love is and entails and coping with certain death. The joy that Florence got from singing and the feigned adoration kept her going through the turmoil that surrounded the rest of her life. As the film showed (I’m avoiding spoilers), joy, happiness, and life are often intertwined and have an interdependent relationship. The platonic, open marriage she shared with Bayfield has a love present even if it isn’t displayed in the manner we typically think of as a marriage between two people. The protection that he provided to Florence and support he gave her career was what one would think love entails despite the lack of romance. I felt that their dynamic was a good examination of the many forms that love can take.
Calling Meryl Streep a great actress is cliche at the this point, to the point that it annoys me as I mentioned previously. However, she does well here and does in fact deserve to be in the running for an Oscar nomination (although on the lower end). Grant impresses as well in conveying the complicated, layered form of love that Bayfield has for Florence. Florence Foster Jenkins is a pretty good film worth taking a look at if you’re ever looking to sit in for a movie night.
Image: Paramount Pictures
